Perfecting the ccTLD Support Organization Strengthening the ccNSO and ICANN bylaws.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Perfecting the ccTLD Support Organization Strengthening the ccNSO and ICANN bylaws."— Presentation transcript:

1
Perfecting the ccTLD Support Organization Strengthening the ccNSO and ICANN bylaws

2
A Reminder:Why an ICANN SO? ICANN is built on White Paper assumptions: there should be a global body, using transparent, bottom up processes to ensure private sector leadership of coordination of internet resources including assignment of domain names, which includes “redelegation” of cctld managers

3
A Reminder:Why an ICANN SO? If we don’t accept those White Paper principles - leave now If we do, ICANN is here to be shaped to our needs “we are ICANN” or we can be…. The opportunity that best fits our needs is a Support Organisation - the Policy Engines of ICANN

4
A Reminder:Why an ICANN SO? What is that we want? What are the benefits to my LIC? What are the threats I need to be wary of? A. A secure contract for continued IANA service ( supply, plus liability hand-off) B. Control of the policy over entries in the IANA cctld database ( redelegation safety)

5
A Reminder:Why an ICANN SO? 2 Primary relationships to be considered: With IANA ( contracted to ICANN) With the rest of the net community over “interoperability” issues 3 strong themes: “lightweight organisation”; funding support for IANA function; benefits of group Best Practice development

6
A.The individual ccTLD contract Essential term will be: willingness of cctld to abide by community-based consensus on limited global interoperability issues; Where is that community to be found? By what process is consensus to be reached? Who is to judge consensus has been reached Answer: the ccNSO

7
A.The SO and the ccTLD contract with ICANN We want the answers to be developed in a place where we are “in control” - the dominant if not only players. Other than 3 “extra” councillors, the cctlds control the ccNSO. We want the process to be under the ccTLD control - the PDP is. ( The board cannot re- make ccTLD policy )

8
B.Controlling the cctld IANA database We want IANA to carry out our directions on “routine” changes We want re-delegation issues decided by national law Where is the policy on these matters currently made? NOT BY CCTLDS

9
B.Controlling the cctld IANA database What has happened is a set of so called Principles from the GAC have driven recent re-delegations. ccTLD are in danger from those principles being amended to strengthen the role of Governments; RFC 1591 will be displaced Private sector leadership will be replaced

11
B.Controlling the cctld IANA database Are we able to make the policy alone? Policy made in the SO goes to the board, which can accept it, or remit it. And, all ICANN policy is subject to public notice, and a powerful GAC role BUT its up to the board. The board can refuse to follow GAC advice

12
Are there alternatives to an SO? APTLD suggested in Taipei that we form an “outside” organisation, which contracted to provide ICANN with an SO the RIR model Proposed but not endorsed in Montevideo Effectively abandoned at Accra one body, 2 jobs= too confusing

13
Are there alternatives to an SO? It has been suggested ccTLDs plus others could successfully bid to operate cc-IANA no real work presented to date no real prospect USG would accept after 9/11 Likely to be opposed by Govts, including GAC

14
Are there alternatives to an SO? Can we wait to explore alternatives? Many think that WSIS, ITU and other proposals are likely to destabilise, be contentious and time consuming…. None of them permits a major role for cctld managers None is based on private sector, self regulation…..

15
Meanwhile, progress on the SO With the June 02 Blueprint accepting an SO, work went into design, scope, power, membership, etc of the SO. Principles and Bylaws have been revised and debated in Rio, and in Montreal. A launching group was assembled, appl’ns for membership approved 4 of 5 regions are now represented in SO

16
Do the Bylaws meet our needs? Unarguable that bylaws were rushed in Montreal: some there did not fully comprehend them many cctld managers were not there Closer analysis since Montreal reveals areas where greater clarity is required. Some inconsistencies have emerged.

17
Do the bylaws meet our needs? Valuable debate on the cctld lists Some areas where there clearly are different interpretations, so clarity is desirable. Amendment needs to go through a board process - can be done at monthly telephone meeting Presentation from Stephan Welzel to follow